Residents at Athlone asylum seekers centre refusing to eat

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

That's not what you said Nodin and you still seem unable to post that link.

Things would be easier if I was pointed at exactly what it is you wish to discuss, as opposed to a process of elimination on my part.

He had no conviction before he arrived,

He had a background check done as do all applicants and no conviction was found, otherwise he wouldn't have been granted a visa. The Judge read his file and certainly would have noted any history of sexual violence.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Things would be easier if I was pointed at exactly what it is you wish to discuss, as opposed to a process of elimination on my part.



He had a background check done as do all applicants and no conviction was found, otherwise he wouldn't have been granted a visa. The Judge read his file and certainly would have noted any history of sexual violence.

I understand your frustration Nodin. Really, I do.

You are now asserting that the rapist had a background check done on him. How can you prove that?

Did the judge have access to Eiritrean records?

Does Ireland have access to such records?

How exactly do you know he had never raped before?

What do you mean by stating that he would not have been granted a visa if it was known he was a rapist? How else would he stay? What would now stop his deportation?

Refer to your own link for the last question. I find entire wikipedia links as a quote a bit of an insult.

Finally, I suggest you read up on the legitimate rights of States to revoke asylum status where such applicants are a threat to the citizens of that State. When you have done me the courtesy of comprehensively replying with links, I'll shoot one your way to prove it.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Fleeing a war torn country or a militia is rather different from being a defector as in the cold war period.

A judge reviewed the file. She raised no concerns.

"Mekonnen was found guilty last February of raping a 42-year-old woman at St Stephen's Green in August, 2005 and Ms Justice Clark directed at the last hearing that his refugee status file be produced and examined. This was with the consent of Mekonnen's legal team, Mr Blaise O'Carroll SC (with Ms Biggs).
Ms Justice Clark said she had now received the file from Oifig Choimisinéir Iarratais na dTeifeach and reviewed the information relating to Mekonnen's background. "

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rapist-carried-kicking-and-screaming-from-court-338053.html

Just to clarify,I'm not referring to the Mekonnen case at all,when making the point about Internet Access and Social Media presence.

The fact that we now appear to have prioritized the "Rights" of a violent rapist over and above that of an "Ordinary" citizen is a far broader issue altogether and one which will be difficult to debate in single word/short sentence posts.

AlekSmart

reprise wrote: »

I understand your frustration Nodin. Really, I do.

You are now asserting that the rapist had a background check done on him. How can you prove that?

Did the judge have access to Eiritrean records?

Does Ireland have access to such records?

How exactly do you know he had never raped before?

What do you mean by stating that he would not have been granted a visa if it was known he was a rapist? How else would he stay? What would now stop his deportation?

Refer to your own link for the last question. I find entire wikipedia links as a quote a bit of an insult.

Finally, I suggest you read up on the legitimate rights of States to revoke asylum status where such applicants are a threat to the citizens of that State. When you have done me the courtesy of replying with links, I'll shoot one your way to prove it.

I under stand your frustration Reprise,I really do.....;)

However placing vast reliance upon links and quotes,as some posters do kinda deflects from the reality of our Country's situation.

It is blatently obvious that Mr Mekonnen,as of NOW,does not bring any benefit to this State,he does however carry a vastly increased risk to the safety and wellbeing of other citizens,a reality recognized by his inclusion on the Sex-Offenders Register.

Now,put at it's simplest,what level of responsibility should law abiding Irish Citizens feel they have to this gentlemans wellbeing ?

The gent has now had 7 years of being fully maintained (at no small expense) by Irish Taxpayers....I suggest our Social and Moral Debt to this man is now cleared,and he should be repatriated to his home country asap.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

I understand your frustration Nodin. Really, I do.

You are now asserting that the rapist had a background check done on him. How can you prove that?.

Because all applicants have background checks.

reprise wrote: »

How exactly do you know he had never raped before?.

You realise you're asking me to prove a negative?

reprise wrote: »

What do you mean by stating that he would not have been granted a visa if it was known he was a rapist? .

Because such persons can be refused asylum.

reprise wrote: »

Finally, I suggest you read up on the legitimate rights of States to revoke asylum status where such applicants are a threat to the citizens of that State. t.

He may have his status revoked, but he still can't be deported to a war torn country.

reprise

reprise wrote: »

Do you think you could provide a link for this claim.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I under stand your frustration Reprise,I really do.....;)

However placing vast reliance upon links and quotes,as some posters do kinda deflects from the reality of our Country's situation.

I think fair is fair.

If you are the type of debater that wishes to forensically parse and analyse every sentence written and demand links for every assertion, you should be offered the chance to set the example required. Otherwise you could be unfairly accused of bullying or throttling the debate.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Because all applicants have background checks.

How does one comprehensively check the background of someone fleeing Ertitrea? I really don't want to repeat the questions I am asking because you refuse to answer but I would like an answer. I can post them up again if you like.

Nodin wrote: »

You realise you're asking me to prove a negative?

I have asked you to prove your own assertion. Don't you believe yourself?

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

How does one comprehensively check the background of someone fleeing Ertitrea? I really don't want to repeat the questions I am asking because you refuse to answer but I would like an answer. I can post them up again if you like.?

Evidently the various Governments who admit persons from Eritrea believe its sufficient.

reprise wrote: »

I have asked you to prove your own assertion. Don't you believe yourself?

There is no evidence that he committed rape in Eritrea afaik, and no such claim was made during the court case.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Evidently the various Governments who admit persons from Eritrea believe its sufficient.

And what criteria are they operating on?

I'm wildly guessing there is some manner of checks and balances that are possibly easier to conduct in Eritrea than in Ireland.

Links please to policy.

Nodin wrote: »

There is no evidence that he committed rape in Eritrea afaik, and no such claim was made during the court case.

You stated "He had no conviction before he arrived".

You have now shifted position "afaik". Guesswork. So you don't know and you never did. You assumed based on what wasn't known and may never have been checked. Not good enough Nodin.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Evidently the various Governments who admit persons from Eritrea believe its sufficient.
.

Hang on!

Are you trying to claim that he came here legally? We admitted him?

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

And what criteria are they operating on?
.

Whatever the individual states are.

reprise wrote: »

You stated "(...................) Nodin.

It's impossible to prove a negative.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Hang on!

Are you trying to claim that he came here legally? We admitted him?

There's no evidence to the contrary.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Whatever the individual states are.

Thats a very vague answer Nodin. Whats Irelands policy then, lets stick to the relevant country, our own.

Now you have no idea how this chap arrived here and you have changed your mind on whether he was a rapist or not before blessing us with his presence. So lets pretend he came here legally.

What checks does Ireland normally do in such circumstances?

What checks are possible if he arrives illegally? How effective are they?

If the individual is an asylum applicant, is it wise to tip the Eritrean Government off he is here? I mean, what if he claims he is fleeing that very Government?

Nodin wrote: »

It's impossible to prove a negative.

It seems even harder to post a link or stand over your own assertions.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Thats a very vague answer Nodin. Whats Irelands policy then, lets stick to the relevant country, our own.

Now you have no idea how this chap arrived here and you have changed your mind on whether he was a rapist or not before blessing us with his presence. So lets pretend he came here legally.

What checks does Ireland normally do in such circumstances?.

According to Alan Shatter

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application. Checks are carried out as needed with An Garda Síochána and other countries’ immigration and police authorities as part of the application process. Checks are also carried out with the authorities of the United Kingdom in the context of maintaining the integrity of the Common Travel Area.
Furthermore, where any person who is not a citizen of Ireland or the United Kingdom, who is resident in the State, is known or suspected to have engaged in criminal activity, An Garda Síochána may provide relevant information to the Irish Naturalisation & Immigration Service (INIS) for the purpose of consideration being given to initiating a process to arrange for their removal from the State pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 or, if the person is an EU national, pursuant to Regulation 20 of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006."
http://www.nascireland.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-in-ireland-and-identity-documents/pq-immigration-policy-criminal-background-check/

reprise wrote: »

What checks are possible if he arrives illegally? How effective are they?.

There's no evidence he arrived illegally.

smurfjed

but he still can't be deported to a war torn country.

Its not torn too badly, i have friends who go there for holidays and weekends....

There's no evidence he arrived illegally.

For obvious reasons, Eritrean nationals have a very hard time getting visas to ANY country, so how would you ascertain that he arrived legally?

Gatling

Application name Joe Blogged

Have you committed an illegal offence - No

Reasons for entering country of choice holiday


Ok welcome to Ireland

Chances are he's using an alias and for all we know he's it's not his first aggravated sexual assault / rape..

Now we're stuck with a very dangerous person roaming the streets that we can't get rid of .

Rendition comes to mind .

Makes you wonder what other dangerous individuals are currently awaiting for there papers to legally stay

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

According to Alan Shatter

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application. Checks are carried out as needed with An Garda Síochána and other countries’ immigration and police authorities as part of the application process. Checks are also carried out with the authorities of the United Kingdom in the context of maintaining the integrity of the Common Travel Area.
Furthermore, where any person who is not a citizen of Ireland or the United Kingdom, who is resident in the State, is known or suspected to have engaged in criminal activity, An Garda Síochána may provide relevant information to the Irish Naturalisation & Immigration Service (INIS) for the purpose of consideration being given to initiating a process to arrange for their removal from the State pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 or, if the person is an EU national, pursuant to Regulation 20 of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006."




There's no evidence he arrived illegally.

What's with posting a load of crap and blather from the EU and the CAT?

We are talking about Eritrea Nodin and Irelands policy with that country. You are being highly evasive again and far from living up to your own standard, but I note the following:

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application.

So you are entirely happy, that whether this chap arrived here legally or not, he complied with this requirement and freely disclosed any criminal convictions? That good enough for you Nodin? Are you happy with the burden of proof aspect of this requirement?

We havent even got into the good stuff yet here Nodin. What if a paedophile could sustain a claim of a death sentence if deported? Its somewhat ironic that its one claim even I would tend to believe. But what do we do then? welcome one and all there too? hire a cordon bleu chef?, demand the "right" to work and "contribute"?

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application. Checks are carried out as needed with An Garda Síochána and other countries’ immigration and police authorities as part of the application process. Checks are also carried out with the authorities of the United Kingdom in the context of maintaining the integrity of the Common Travel Area.

I suspect that's a typically obfuscatory use of language by Alan Shatter.

In my experience, he's more likely referring to the EURODOC European fingerprinting system for asylum applications than he is to any sort of correspondence with non-EU countries.

I have never heard of INIS, the GNIB or ORAC, or any associated agency, liasing with countries of origin for the purposes of doing 'background checks' on applicants for asylum or protection. I am 99% sure it simply does not happen.

Nodin

smurfjed wrote: »

Its not torn too badly, i have friends who go there for holidays and weekends....

From Human Rights Watch

"Eritrea is among the most closed countries in the world; human rights conditions remain dismal. Indefinite military service, torture, arbitrary detention, and severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, association, and religion provoke thousands of Eritreans to flee the country each month."
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/eritrea

smurfjed wrote: »

For obvious reasons, Eritrean nationals have a very hard time getting visas to ANY country, so how would you ascertain that he arrived legally?

Theres be no suggestion that he arrived illegally.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

From Human Rights Watch

"Eritrea is among the most closed countries in the world; human rights conditions remain dismal. Indefinite military service, torture, arbitrary detention, and severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, association, and religion provoke thousands of Eritreans to flee the country each month."



Theres be no suggestion that he arrived illegally.

"Who knew that Asmara, the capital, boasts the most shining collection of colonial architectural wonders in Africa? It is like a film set from an early Italian movie, with vintage Italian coffee machines and outstanding examples of Art-Deco architecture. On the Red Sea Coast, the sultry town of Massawa is redolent with Islamic influence. It is also the starting point for visits to the Dahlak Islands, one of the least spoilt and least known reefs in the Red Sea. Southern Eritrea features a superb array of archaeological sites that recount volumes of history. The apocalyptic wasteland of Dankalia, stretching to the south, is considered one of the most arresting places on earth and has a desolate magnetism. Eritrea’s nine colourful ethnic groups are diverse and individual, and are a major highlight.

Isn’t that enough? Although the country faces numerous hardships, it paradoxically remains one of Africa’s most peaceful, secure and welcoming destinations. Come and see for yourself!

Lonely Planet.



Now Nodin, if you would be so good as to answer my post.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Isn’t that enough? Although the country faces numerous hardships, it paradoxically remains one of Africa’s most peaceful, secure and welcoming destinations. Come and see for yourself!

Lonely Planet.
.

You might forward that on to HRW, who seem to think differently.

reprise wrote: »

Now Nodin, if you would be so good as to answer my post.

I believe I did. What specific point are you having problems with?

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

You might forward that on to HRW, who seem to think differently.

Dear oh dear.

Nodin wrote: »

I believe I did. What specific point are you having problems with?

this bit for now:

What's with posting a load of crap and blather from the EU and the CAT?

We are talking about Eritrea Nodin and Irelands policy with that country. You are being highly evasive again and far from living up to your own standard, but I note the following:

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application.

So you are entirely happy, that whether this chap arrived here legally or not, he complied with this requirement and freely disclosed any criminal convictions? That good enough for you Nodin? Are you happy with the burden of proof aspect of this requirement?

We havent even got into the good stuff yet here Nodin. What if a paedophile could sustain a claim of a death sentence if deported? Its somewhat ironic that its one claim even I would tend to believe. But what do we do then? welcome one and all there too? hire a cordon bleu chef?, demand the "right" to work and "contribute"?

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Dear oh dear.



this bit for now:

What's with posting a load of crap and blather from the EU and the CAT?

We are talking about Eritrea Nodin and Irelands policy with that country. You are being highly evasive again and far from living up to your own standard, but I note the following:

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application.

So you are entirely happy, that whether this chap arrived here legally or not, he complied with this requirement and freely disclosed any criminal convictions? That good enough for you Nodin? Are you happy with the burden of proof aspect of this requirement?

We havent even got into the good stuff yet here Nodin. What if a paedophile could sustain a claim of a death sentence if deported? Its somewhat ironic that its one claim even I would tend to believe. But what do we do then? welcome one and all there too? hire a cordon bleu chef?, demand the "right" to work and "contribute"?

I presumed you were referring to how the state would process an asylum seeker from that state. You'll have to clarify what you mean.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

I presumed you were referring to how the state would process an asylum seeker from that state. You'll have to clarify what you mean.

No thats not true Nodin. You meandered down this path with the following statement:

"Evidently the various Governments who admit persons from Eritrea believe its sufficient."

Having been pulled on your own tendency to jump to conclusions, you are all over the place now, so we are exploring several avenues and possibilities. Thats fine by me.

Please respond to my post:

What's with posting a load of crap and blather from the EU and the CAT?

We are talking about Eritrea Nodin and Irelands policy with that country. You are being highly evasive again and far from living up to your own standard, but I note the following:

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application.

So you are entirely happy, that whether this chap arrived here legally or not, he complied with this requirement and freely disclosed any criminal convictions? That good enough for you Nodin? Are you happy with the burden of proof aspect of this requirement?

We havent even got into the good stuff yet here Nodin. What if a paedophile could sustain a claim of a death sentence if deported? Its somewhat ironic that its one claim even I would tend to believe. But what do we do then? welcome one and all there too? hire a cordon bleu chef?, demand the "right" to work and "contribute"?

AlekSmart

In an attempt to drag the thread back from Eritrea's borders,do we know if the Athlone residents are eating again yet ?

Gatling

AlekSmart wrote: »

In an attempt to drag the thread back from Eritrea's borders,do we know if the Athlone residents are eating again yet ?

They didn't stop eating .

They bought in there own food supplies

walshb

A dead thread, just like the dead protest from the asylum seekers regarding the intolerable conditions they are living in.

Funny how some posters place so much trust in our governments as regards criminal checks and what not on asylum seekers yet are ready to believe a baloney protest about our countries treatment of fleeing asylum seekers.

Where's the protests about the criminals we are failing to trap before gaining entry to this country?

reprise

walshb wrote: »

A dead thread, just like the dead protest from the asylum seekers regarding the intolerable conditions they are living in.

Funny how some posters place so much trust in our governments as regards criminal checks and what not on asylum seekers yet are ready to believe a baloney protest about our countries treatment of fleeing asylum seekers.

Not just our Government it must be said, Eritrea is a bastion of honesty and transparency when you ask about its citizens that are mysteriously here but a basket case when its the reason for their departure.

AlekSmart

Gatling wrote: »

They didn't stop eating .

They bought in there own food supplies

Link !!!!

conorh91

Gatling wrote: »

They didn't stop eating .

They bought in there own food supplies

On "€19.10" per week?

Where are they shopping?

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

On "€19.10" per week?

Where are they shopping?

You never heard of asylum shopping?

Gatling

AlekSmart wrote: »

Link !!!!

Give me a few minutes phones just dead

AlekSmart

conorh91 wrote: »

On "€19.10" per week?

Where are they shopping?

It may be worth noting that a Community Welfare Officer may make discretionary payments under a number of headings,one of which could be "special dietary requirements".

In Dublin,there is quite a healthy trade in ethnic foodstuffs carried out along Parnell St/Moore St/Bolton St.

The Mosney DP centre has a daily dedicated Coach/Minibus Service to facilitate the shoppers.

Gatling

As requested


http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0904/641504-asylum-seekers/

"They are not involved in a hunger strike and are using food from alternative sources and supplies that they had built up instead."

bcmf

Listening to Newstalk today and the parish priest of the parish that the centre is in gave a sermon on Sunday about the people in this centre and the difficulty they face.
Some of his parishioners told him to wake up as they were pulling the wool over his eye's and abusing his good nature.
The PP was interviewed on Friday and true to his good soul felt a need to help these poor people as they couldnt integrate into the community as they hadnt "got the wherewith all to find their way to the local gaa" etc.
Sorry but they managed to have the 'wherewith all' to supposedly get themselves out of war torn countries and manage to find themselves, in of all places, a little island on the edge of Europe.
Flights from <insert country of origin here> to Dublin or Shannon must be cheap.
I blame Ryanair!

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

No thats not (...............). But what do we do then? welcome one and all there too? hire a cordon bleu chef?, demand the "right" to work and "contribute"?

I can't answer when I don't know what you are talking about.

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

It may be worth noting that a Community Welfare Officer may make discretionary payments under a number of headings,one of which could be "special dietary requirements".

In Dublin,there is quite a healthy trade in ethnic foodstuffs carried out along Parnell St/Moore St/Bolton St.

The Mosney DP centre has a daily dedicated Coach/Minibus Service to facilitate the shoppers.

The exceptional needs payment seems to be the "go to" when no other port will grant entry. There is no evidence that this payment has been used in such a manner.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

I can't answer when I don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry, let me clarify again:

What's with posting a load of crap and blather from the EU and the CAT?

We are talking about Eritrea Nodin and Irelands policy with that country. You are being highly evasive again and far from living up to your own standard, but I note the following:

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application.

So you are entirely happy, that whether this chap arrived here legally or not, he complied with this requirement and freely disclosed any criminal convictions? That good enough for you Nodin? Are you happy with the burden of proof aspect of this requirement?

We havent even got into the good stuff yet here Nodin. What if a paedophile could sustain a claim of a death sentence if deported? Its somewhat ironic that its one claim even I would tend to believe. But what do we do then? welcome one and all there too? hire a cordon bleu chef?, demand the "right" to work and "contribute"?

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

The exceptional needs payment seems to be the "go to" when no other port will grant entry. There is no evidence that this payment has been used in such a manner.

What on earth does an exceptional needs payment have to do with a port of entry?

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Sorry, let me clarify again:

What's with posting a load of crap and blather from the EU and the CAT?

We are talking about Eritrea Nodin and Irelands policy with that country. You are being highly evasive again and far from living up to your own standard, but I note the following:

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application.

So you are entirely happy, that whether this chap arrived here legally or not, he complied with this requirement and freely disclosed any criminal convictions? That good enough for you Nodin? Are you happy with the burden of proof aspect of this requirement?

We havent even got into the good stuff yet here Nodin. What if a paedophile could sustain a claim of a death sentence if deported? Its somewhat ironic that its one claim even I would tend to believe. But what do we do then? welcome one and all there too? hire a cordon bleu chef?, demand the "right" to work and "contribute"?

What are you referring to in the bolded section?

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

What on earth does an exceptional needs payment have to do with a port of entry?

It was a metaphor.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

What are you referring to in the bolded section?

Finally,


That would be your totally unqualified assertion that we background check all asylum applicants with their respective countries of origin for criminality etc.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

It was a metaphor.

What does it mean?

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Finally,


That would be your totally unqualified assertion that we background check all asylum applicants with their respective countries of origin for criminality etc.

I asked you what it meant back here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92211894&postcount=274

I already provided the answer

"As well as the legal requirement on non-nationals to seek permission to enter the State on arrival at an approved port of entry, visa required nationals are obliged to disclose any criminal convictions as part of their application. Checks are carried out as needed with An Garda Síochána and other countries’ immigration and police authorities as part of the application process. Checks are also carried out with the authorities of the United Kingdom in the context of maintaining the integrity of the Common Travel Area.
Furthermore, where any person who is not a citizen of Ireland or the United Kingdom, who is resident in the State, is known or suspected to have engaged in criminal activity, An Garda Síochána may provide relevant information to the Irish Naturalisation & Immigration Service (INIS) for the purpose of consideration being given to initiating a process to arrange for their removal from the State pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 or, if the person is an EU national, pursuant to Regulation 20 of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006."
http://www.nascireland.org/know-your...kground-check/

Reprise wrote:

What does it mean?

When people want to imply that asylum seekers are getting more than 19 euro a week and living comfortably and its shown that they can't claim ordinary benefits, people turn to the discretionary payments as the supposed source of their funds.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

I asked you what it meant back here


I already provided the answer

No you did not. Thats not what I asked for. I asked for our provisions with Eritrea so I will ask you again. What arrangements do we have with Eritrea to check the backgrounds of those here either claiming asylum or on visas? Do we actually check asylum applicants at all if they claim they have fled the government?

Nodin wrote: »

When people want to imply that asylum seekers are getting more than 19 euro a week and living comfortably and its shown that they can't claim ordinary benefits, people turn to the discretionary payments as the supposed source of their funds.

I think people are reacting to the completely lopsided portrait being painted by those who are meant to be advancing their cause. Nature hates a vacuum.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

No you did not. Thats not what I asked for. I asked for our provisions with Eritrea so I will ask you again. What arrangements do we have with Eritrea to check the backgrounds of those here either claiming asylum or on visas? Do we actually check asylum applicants at all if they claim they have fled the government?

.

I've no idea of the precise details.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

I've no idea of the precise details.

I thought as much.

In the interest of the thread, I'm parking it there. My apologies to the other posters for labouring a point.

Ebola7

Food or its quality is not a real issue here. It can be all broken down to timing.
These centres provide meals at allocated times -breakfast, lunch dinner. After that staff leaves and that's it. This make it problematic to get food for residents who miss breakfast and lunch due to early shifts in their jobs and some will miss dinner when going to evening shift in take away and restaurants.
Yes, they do work. Mostly in asian restaurants and eateries, delivering leaflets and local papers in the mornings. I have talked to several of them, going rate is about 2-3 euro/hour. No wonder they are frustrated.
Problem is that there is simply no chance to close direct provision as it will be more costly approach. They cost taxpayer about 180 euro/week I cant see where government is going to get money to provide all of them with houses. Every asylum seeker who is granted refugee status is required to move out of direct provision. Then they have to rent accommodation and with current housing situation they have to rent - getting rent supplement where government practically pay for their accommodation on top of that weekly 180 euro. The second they are granted refugee status and come to their old job looking for more than just 2-3 euro they are kicked out of the door.
My opinion is that real culprit behind their grievances are not "greedy" direct provision centre owners but appeal process where legal professionals make killing launching appeal after another even that they know they will be rejected. That is the case of people waiting 5-10 years, they are aided by solicitors to refuse to leave even if their case do not met condition to grant refugee status.

Ebola7

Food or its quality is not a real issue here. It can be all broken down to timing.
These centres provide meals at allocated times -breakfast, lunch dinner. After that staff leaves and that's it. This make it problematic to get food for residents who miss breakfast and lunch due to early shifts in their jobs and some will miss dinner when going to evening shift in take away and restaurants.
Yes, they do work. Mostly in asian restaurants and eateries, delivering leaflets and local papers in the mornings. I have talked to several of them, going rate is about 2-3 euro/hour. No wonder they are frustrated.
Problem is that there is simply no chance to close direct provision as it will be more costly approach. They cost taxpayer about 180 euro/week I cant see where government is going to get money to provide all of them with houses. Every asylum seeker who is granted refugee status is required to move out of direct provision. Then they have to find their own accommodation and with current housing situation they have to rent - getting rent supplement where government practically pay for their accommodation on top of that weekly 180 euro. The second they are granted refugee status and come to their old job looking for more than just 2-3 euro they are kicked out of the door.
My opinion is that real culprit behind their grievances are not "greedy" direct provision centre owners but appeal process where legal professionals make killing launching appeal after another even that they know they will be rejected. That is the case of people waiting 5-10 years, they are aided by solicitors to refuse to leave even if their case do not met condition to grant refugee status.

Gatling

Ebola7 wrote: »

Food or its quality is not a real issue here. It can be all broken down to timing.
These centres provide meals at allocated times -breakfast, lunch dinner. After that staff leaves and that's it. This make it problematic to get food for residents who miss breakfast and lunch due to early shifts in their jobs and some will miss dinner when going to evening shift in take away and restaurants.
Yes, they do work. Mostly in asian restaurants and eateries, delivering leaflets and local papers in the mornings. I have talked to several of them, going rate is about 2-3 euro/hour. No wonder they are frustrated.

See that is illegal asylum seekers are not allowed to work ,

But if there missing meal times thats there own problem cant expect a 24hr restaurant